Page 2 of 6
RE: Design your BB for Pacific War...
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 1:48 pm
by Sardaukar
Yeps..back to topic would one's idea of ideal Battleship for Pacific War.
RE: Design your BB for Pacific War...
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 4:59 pm
by herwin
ORIGINAL: Tiornu
Bismarck was made for flawed Cruiser-War concept, but still had more weight allocated to armour protection than others (42% IIRC).
One of the strange things about the Bismarck project is that there was no clear mission intended for the design. The head of the KM Fleet Dept wrote c1938 that he could find no documentation specifying an intended role for Bismarck, Scharnhorst, or Hipper. I believe the Germans were simply building battleships for the sake of building battleships.
I do like powerplants of Bismarck for their power to weight ratio
I think the prime virtue of the Bismarck class was its mobility: good speed, satisfactory sea-keeping, and sufficient range.
I believe the AP rounds for the Bismarck's 15" guns weighed in at about 2,000 lbs. From the overall damage reports (especially from PoW) a significant number appear to have been duds.
Bismarck's shells weighed 800kg. Probably three of these hit PoW. One passed through the compass platform where the thickest plating was 1in. This would have been enough to trigger the shell's fuze, but the shell would have been long gone before it exploded, and in fact, it did not explode while aboard PoW. One shell hit a crane and exploded normally. The third shell landed short, tumbled wildly underwater, and entered PoW's hull nearly backwards. This was a dud, but we don't have enough information to blame a faulty shell; the extreme violence of the tumble might have interfered with any shell's fuze action. One other shell of unknown caliber passed through the superstructure without pursting on board, much like the compass platform hit. On the other hand, I think all of the hits by Prinz Eugen showed a flawed performance.
Ditto for the Hippers. They were designed to attack the French convoys bringing the North African forces to Marseilles.
RE: Design your BB for Pacific War...
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 7:38 pm
by chesmart
I would Basically build the montana's as they have good firepower great endurance heavily armoured as they were designed to have immunity against 16inch fire plus great AA potential. Speed is good to keep up with CV taskforces and they are my favourite non built ships. In fighting Steel i take out a yamato easily with a montana.
RE: Design your BB for Pacific War...
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 8:15 pm
by hawker
Only shell that ACTUALLY penetrate Bismarck armor was Rodney 406mm.
When Bismarck was put at sea,she was the BEST battleship in world,and has the BEST artillery crew.
Yes,everyone can do "what if" scenarios.
Bismark vs Iowa,Iova vs Yamato.....................etc
Iowa,Yamato... NEVER fired their guns at other BB,Bismarck did.That is only fact.
At ranges of 15-20000m Bismarck can blew of the water ANY ship of her time,and actually did that.
Truly legendary ship,even on bottom of the sea she looks like that can sail again[;)]
P.S. She was scuttled[8D]
RE: Design your BB for Pacific War...
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 9:34 pm
by String
ORIGINAL: hawker
Only shell that ACTUALLY penetrate Bismarck armor was Rodney 406mm.
When Bismarck was put at sea,she was the BEST battleship in world,and has the BEST artillery crew.
Yes,everyone can do "what if" scenarios.
Bismark vs Iowa,Iova vs Yamato.....................etc
Iowa,Yamato... NEVER fired their guns at other BB,Bismarck did.That is only fact.
At ranges of 15-20000m Bismarck can blew of the water ANY ship of her time,and actually did that.
Truly legendary ship,even on bottom of the sea she looks like that can sail again[;)]
P.S. She was scuttled[8D]
Was it you that had that huge long "Bismarck is the best BB in the world" thread?
She was never the best. Largest at the time of her launch, yes.., best, no.
RE: Design your BB for Pacific War...
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 9:48 pm
by Tiornu
Only shell that ACTUALLY penetrate Bismarck armor was Rodney 406mm.
That's not true.
She was scuttled
That is true.
As to our topic, Bismarck might be a suitable model for a Pacific battleship, with a few reservations. We don't know how she'd do in Pacific seas. Her heavy AA was poor. And, regardless of which side she's on, she's facing a navy with a stated preference for extreme-range engagements, while her armor layout looks best at RJ War range.
RE: Design your BB for Pacific War...
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 10:04 pm
by JeffroK
ORIGINAL: Raverdave
Mine would have a 150 foot deck and hanger space for 75 fighters.[;)]
50 fighters and 50 SBD-5
RE: Design your BB for Pacific War...
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 10:11 pm
by JeffroK
The fact that someone opened the sea cocks only brought forward Bismark's demise, it would have been sunk very soon after.
A BB for the Pacific
Speed to keep up with the Fast Carriers.
Armour to withstand at least 16" shells, I dont intend to be near the 18.1". Enough protection, bulges, armour, compatments etc to withstand a long lance torpedo or two.
The best Radar on the block.
8 x 16" Guns, 4 x2 with 2 forward and 2 aft.
20 x 5" DP with proximity fuzes.
As many 40mm & 20mm AA, with proximity fuzes, as could be safely put aboard.
In my BB the main gunsa are the secondary armament, its really a BBAA.
RE: Design your BB for Pacific War...
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 10:35 pm
by hawker
ORIGINAL: String
ORIGINAL: hawker
Only shell that ACTUALLY penetrate Bismarck armor was Rodney 406mm.
When Bismarck was put at sea,she was the BEST battleship in world,and has the BEST artillery crew.
Yes,everyone can do "what if" scenarios.
Bismark vs Iowa,Iova vs Yamato.....................etc
Iowa,Yamato... NEVER fired their guns at other BB,Bismarck did.That is only fact.
At ranges of 15-20000m Bismarck can blew of the water ANY ship of her time,and actually did that.
Truly legendary ship,even on bottom of the sea she looks like that can sail again[;)]
P.S. She was scuttled[8D]
Was it you that had that huge long "Bismarck is the best BB in the world" thread?
She was never the best. Largest at the time of her launch, yes.., best, no.
And what ship in your opinion was better in that time?[:D]
Please,share that with us.
Tiornu,
I think James Cameron expedition proves that only Rodney 406mm guns penetrate Bismarck armor,but these can be checked[;)]
RE: Design your BB for Pacific War...
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 10:37 pm
by hawker
The fact that someone opened the sea cocks only brought forward Bismark's demise, it would have been sunk very soon after.
Wrong,Brittish probably would seize her.
Imagine propaganda blow[:D]
RE: Design your BB for Pacific War...
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 10:53 pm
by String
ORIGINAL: hawker
ORIGINAL: String
ORIGINAL: hawker
Only shell that ACTUALLY penetrate Bismarck armor was Rodney 406mm.
When Bismarck was put at sea,she was the BEST battleship in world,and has the BEST artillery crew.
Yes,everyone can do "what if" scenarios.
Bismark vs Iowa,Iova vs Yamato.....................etc
Iowa,Yamato... NEVER fired their guns at other BB,Bismarck did.That is only fact.
At ranges of 15-20000m Bismarck can blew of the water ANY ship of her time,and actually did that.
Truly legendary ship,even on bottom of the sea she looks like that can sail again[;)]
P.S. She was scuttled[8D]
Was it you that had that huge long "Bismarck is the best BB in the world" thread?
She was never the best. Largest at the time of her launch, yes.., best, no.
And what ship in your opinion was better in that time?[:D]
Please,share that with us.
Tiornu,
I think James Cameron expedition proves that only Rodney 406mm guns penetrate Bismarck armor,but these can be checked[;)]
Of the newer ones? KGV. Comparable firepower, better armor, better firecontrol (radar), betterl AAA suite. Only inferior in underwater protection and general seakeeping.
IMHO it could even be argued that the post ww1 16" designes were superior or atleast comparable to the Bismarck. A lucky shot on an oversized battlecruiser does not make a good battleship.
RE: Design your BB for Pacific War...
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:04 pm
by hawker
ORIGINAL: String
ORIGINAL: hawker
ORIGINAL: String
Was it you that had that huge long "Bismarck is the best BB in the world" thread?
She was never the best. Largest at the time of her launch, yes.., best, no.
And what ship in your opinion was better in that time?[:D]
Please,share that with us.
Tiornu,
I think James Cameron expedition proves that only Rodney 406mm guns penetrate Bismarck armor,but these can be checked[;)]
Of the newer ones? KGV. Comparable firepower, better armor, better firecontrol (radar), betterl AAA suite. Only inferior in underwater protection and general seakeeping.
IMHO it could even be argued that the post ww1 16" designes were superior or atleast comparable to the Bismarck. A lucky shot on an oversized battlecruiser does not make a good battleship.
KGVs!,and you cant find better[:-].
Sorry,but that is laughable.
Thats for newer ones,can you find older ones?[:D]
RE: Design your BB for Pacific War...
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:10 pm
by wdolson
ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
All well and good...., except that that was not the question posed! Of course, neither was all this nonsense about the Second World War's "most overated" Battleship, so perhaps you can be forgiven for not noticing the title of the thread.
I did wander off on a tangent, but I did notice the title of the thread. IMO, the best battleship fr the Pacific War would have been no battleship. Build more carriers with the yard space.
I apologize for writing an essay about it.
Bill
RE: Design your BB for Pacific War...
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:13 pm
by String
ORIGINAL: hawker
ORIGINAL: String
ORIGINAL: hawker
And what ship in your opinion was better in that time?[:D]
Please,share that with us.
Tiornu,
I think James Cameron expedition proves that only Rodney 406mm guns penetrate Bismarck armor,but these can be checked[;)]
Of the newer ones? KGV. Comparable firepower, better armor, better firecontrol (radar), betterl AAA suite. Only inferior in underwater protection and general seakeeping.
IMHO it could even be argued that the post ww1 16" designes were superior or atleast comparable to the Bismarck. A lucky shot on an oversized battlecruiser does not make a good battleship.
KGVs!,and you cant find better[:-].
Sorry,but that is laughable.
Thats for newer ones,can you find older ones?[:D]
At the time Bismarck was launched, yes, just a year later the North CAROLINA totally outclasses her.
Can you tell me why the KGV is so inferior to the Bismarck?
edit: it's north carolina not north dakota.. silly me
RE: Design your BB for Pacific War...
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:14 pm
by Mike Scholl
ORIGINAL: hawker
KGVs!,and you cant find better[:-].
Sorry,but that is laughable.
Thats for newer ones,can you find older ones?[:D]
Washington or North Carolina would eat that oversized, cheatin', Nazi, barrel o' bolts for lunch. Is that the answer you were looking for?
RE: Design your BB for Pacific War...
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:17 pm
by String
ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
ORIGINAL: hawker
KGVs!,and you cant find better[:-].
Sorry,but that is laughable.
Thats for newer ones,can you find older ones?[:D]
Washington or North Carolina would eat that oversized, cheatin', Nazi, barrel o' bolts for lunch. Is that the answer you were looking for?
All well and good but they were commissioned a bit later than the Bismarck, so sadly they don't count [:(]
RE: Design your BB for Pacific War...
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:19 pm
by Tiornu
I think James Cameron expedition proves that only Rodney 406mm guns penetrate Bismarck armor
No, the Cameron made no determinations on the caliber of the belt penetrations. At least one 14in salvo is credited with causing the damage to the armor-protected hydraulics that caused Anton's guns to depress. There's no reason to think that Bismarck's armor could withstand hits from 14in shells at short range.
Brittish probably would seize her.
The British, if they had somehow made it aboard, would have been even less able to keep the ship afloat than the Germans. In terms of propaganda, the best that could be hoped would be for photos taken aboard the sinking ship. There was no way to save Bismarck, and I doubt there was any hope of putting a boarding party on to her. Moot point, right? The British never gave a thought to boarding. They sent in Dorsetshire to finish her with torpedoes.
KGV. Comparable firepower, better armor, better firecontrol (radar), betterl AAA suite. Only inferior in underwater protection and general seakeeping.
KGV's radar was not better at the time of this fight. Same with the AAA, right? But yes, she had better armor. Regarding the current topic, KGV is inadequate as a Pacific battleship due to what I consider her biggest shortcoming--her range.
RE: Design your BB for Pacific War...
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:27 pm
by hawker
Yes,they will totaly outclassed her,bla,bla,bla.....
I must say that i will not again go in debate about this. I say all about this topic one year ago.
Just too tired of repeating facts.[>:]
Fair winds
RE: Design your BB for Pacific War...
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:54 pm
by String
ORIGINAL: hawker
Yes,they will totaly outclassed her,bla,bla,bla.....
I must say that i will not again go in debate about this. I say all about this topic one year ago.
Just too tired of repeating facts.[>:]
Fair winds
I do recall an epic thread about it yes..
RE: Design your BB for Pacific War...
Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 12:35 am
by Mike Scholl
ORIGINAL: String
ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
Washington or North Carolina would eat that oversized, cheatin', Nazi, barrel o' bolts for lunch. Is that the answer you were looking for?
All well and good but they were commissioned a bit later than the Bismarck, so sadly they don't count [:(]
Tirpitz, North Carolina, and Washington were all commissioned within 3 months of each other, so the classes were of comtemporary design and construction. And the US didn't need to "cheat" by 7,000 tons to produce an excellent ship.